Page 188 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

44
occupied by Mask.it. Government may perhaps deem it inadvisable to do anything
injurious to Maskat so long as Government is preventing Maskat from action.”
This was repeated to the Secretary of State on the 22nd July 1868.
173. With his letter No. 79, dated the 22nd June 1868, the Resident in the
Proceeding* No. 263 in Political a., September Gulf submitted copy of the correspondence
1868, Nos. aba-6*. that had passed between him and the
Sultan of Maskat and said as follows:—
“Your Excellency in Council will observe that Mis Highness the Sultan explicitly
declares the islet of Angaum to belong to him and to have been the property of his dynasty
from its origin.
“ His Highness desires further to grant the right of settlement on the islet to the
British Government, resuming only the free right of anchorage and transferring to us the
islet of his own free will.
“ As telegrams between the British Minister in Persia and the Bombay Government
AcoprofthisroiwirdRlio ih. Go«,nm.nt of P«s through Buslmc, it is possible His Excel.
India with Government letter No. 142, dated the lcncy in Council may consider that their com-
30th July 1868. munication to inc would tend to keep me more
Proceedings No. 262, ibid. fully informed as to what the views of English
authority may be in regard to the Angaum portion of my charge/’
174. The following telegram was sent by His Excellency the Governor of
Bombay to the Secretary of State (date is not mentioned in the copy on
record) :—
** Late communications from Colonel Pelly tend to show’ that Angaum is not included
in the Bandar Abbas lease and does not belong to Persia. I surest that it is very advis­
able the Foreign Office should defer ratification of convention as to the island till this point
is cleared up or at least till renew’al of the Bandar Abbas lease has been completed. Full
papers will be sent by mail if they have not already been forwarded.”
175. On the 29th July 1868 the following telegram wa9 sent by the Bombay
Proceeding* No. 32 in Political a., August 1868, Government to the Government of India
No*. 22-36.
** His Excellency ha* received the following telegram from Colonel Pelly :—* Prince Gov­
ernor has requested me to postpone my departure from Shiraz in view to completing Settle­
ment of Bandar Abbas question. Has Government any instructions regarding Angaum?'
Telegram ends. The Imam does not claim sovereignty, but that the territory (Bandar Abbas)
should be*re-leased to him, inasmuch as he claims that the former lease was wrongfully
put an end to. As regards Angaum, the casejs different, as Colonel Pelly says that, upon
investigation, it has always been Maskat territory, and is included neither in the lease of 1855
nor in the map thereto annexed and now exhibited by the Persians themselves. His Excel­
lency is unaware what the terms of the convention negotiated by Mr. Alison are, or the
grounds on which His Excellency the Viceroy still considers Angaum a dependency of
Bunder Abbass, and therefore requests that he may be enabled to give the instructions
required by Colonel Pelly. He ventures to think that if the island be not Persian territory,
it is inexpedient to treat it as such. In the meantime, Colonel Pelly is informed that
under no circumstances will His Excellency the Viceroy permit Maskat to undertake
hostilities.”
Proceedings No. 105 iu Political A., Octok£r^868, 176. The following telegram was re­
ceived from the Resident in the Gulf on
Nos. 104*109.
the 6th August 1868 :—
“ My opinion is that from the first Angaum, like Larack and other islands in the south
of the Gulf, had no connection with the Bandar Abbas Local Government. It formed
one of four islands, the property of the Maskat Sultan, and when Persia forced the Sultan
to accept Bandar Abbas in case she specified two islands, vis., Ormuz and Kishm, as
being included in such lease. But Larack and Angaum were not named and have not,
to my knowledge, been called in question. Larack people acknowledge Maskat Sultan ;
and on Angaum have long resided some of the Sultan’s Arab tribe of Soudan. There is no
Persian on the island. The Maskat Minister and others declare that Angaum has belonged
to Maskat ever since the foundation of the present ruling dynasty. The Minister haying
heard some rumours of Persian interference in relation to our telegraphic works, immediate­
ly ordered reinforcements there. They were stayed only at my request. Maskat will
never give up Angaum or Larack to Persia unless under order of compulsion from British
India. She considers it essential to their (? her) stakes at the south of the Gulf that these
islands should continue hers or become ours. 1 have studied the Angaum question since
I first brought it under the notice of Government nearly six years ago, and my respectful
final opinion is that Angaum belongs to Maskat, that it was not alluded to in the Bandar

*